[Redacted], Joannie V, 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 5, 2021

Appeal No. 2021000546 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 5, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Joannie V,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency. Appeal No. 2021000546 Agency Nos. 4C-190-0168-19; 4C-190-0166-19 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated April 8, 2020, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this compliance action, Complainant worked as a Regular Carrier at the Agency’s Collegeville Post Office in Collegeville, Pennsylvania. Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the complaint process on multiple occasions.2 As a result, her complaints have been listed under several EEO complaint numbers. The record before us in Appeal 2021000546 refers to: Agency Nos. 4C-190-0168-19 and 4C-190-0166-19. 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 2 She believed that management was wrongfully deleting her clock rings denying her due compensation after she had been rotated to serve in other office facilities outside of Collegeville. 2021000546 2 On November 29, 2019, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the EEO matter referenced as 4C-190-0166-19. In that Agreement, Complainant states that the Agreement permitted her to review the clock ring report and identify pay discrepancies (including the “etravel entitlements”) to Management no later than January 4, 2020. The Agency summarized the “relevant stipulation of the settlement, pertinent to the Agency,” as reading as follows: Stipulation 3. Management will review noted discrepancies and initiate paperwork to correct any errors, as appropriate, within 30 days of the [Complainant’s] submission, or not later than January 31, 2020. Complainant acknowledged that she had been willing to settle her claims, if management provided her with a copy of her clock rings for the pay periods (from 2019-12-2 through 2019- 25-1) (Employee All Report) by COB November 29, 2019. By letter to the Agency dated March 4, 2020, Complainant claimed there were still unresolved pay discrepancies regarding several specified pay periods, including 12-14, pp 26. 3.75 hours, 12-18, pp 26, “11 units”, among others. The Agency issued its final decision on April 8, 2020,3 referencing complaint 4C-190-0166-19, in response to the breach claim that Complainant submitted on March 4, 2020. The Agency framed Complainant’s breach claim as alleging management “did not reach, follow, nor finish” any settlement agreement dated January 31, 2020. The Agency concluded it was in full compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement and that no further action was warranted. The Agency reasoned the current officer-in-charge for the Collegeville PA facility stated that the clock rings and pay discrepancies identified by Complainant had been reviewed by management and “have been corrected, as of March 18, 2020 (which was inclusive of pay periods 2019-2-2 through 2019-25-1).” The instant appeal followed. Although she maintains that she provided all of the necessary paperwork, Complainant asserts that there are still at least 11 instances of disparities which she states still need to be corrected. Complainant continues to assert her claim that management was deleting her clock rings. She asks for our assistance because she believes that management was deleting the clock rings, changing her terms and conditions of employment (including her bid time), and was not crediting her for her service at other locations. 3 The record includes the April 2020 decision, but the Agency attached a Certificate of Service, dated August 10, 2020, which was the date the Agency issued another breach determination regarding a subsequent complaint. 2021000546 3 ANALYSIS EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a) provides that any settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties, reached at any stage of the complaint process, shall be binding on both parties. The Commission has held that a settlement agreement constitutes a contract between the employee and the Agency, to which ordinary rules of contract construction apply. See Herrington v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Request No. 05960032 (December 9, 1996). The Commission has further held that it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract, not some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract’s construction. Eggleston v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795 (August 23, 1990). In ascertaining the intent of the parties with regard to the terms of a settlement agreement, the Commission has generally relied on the plain meaning rule. See Hyon O v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05910787 (December 2, 1991). This rule states that if the writing appears to be plain and unambiguous on its face, its meaning must be determined from the four corners of the instrument without resort to extrinsic evidence of any nature. See Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Building Eng’g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984). Initially, we note this record is confusing. It is also unclear whether the Agency was addressing a continuing breach claim, a single agreement, or multiple agreements pertinent to one or more EEO complaints.4 Complainant’s writing is often illegible. Complainant’s name, location, and her job title are not clear from the limited information before us on appeal. Nevertheless, we find that the November 29, 2019 agreement is valid and binding. We are also aware that, in her breach claim correspondence regarding 2021000546, Complainant makes conflicting statements. She states the Agency failed to finalize the subject Agreement, but also contends the Agency is in breach of a settlement agreement. In addition to challenging the breach determination, our reading of her appeals shows Complainant maintains the Agency continues to wrongfully denied her overtime and guaranteed pay by deleting her clock rings, changing her bid time, and otherwise failing to credit her for the work she performed. However, the decision before us did not reference those issues. The decision at issue is solely a breach determination. In this case, the Agreement required the Agency to address the pay errors that Complainant brought to management’s attention and correct the errors as appropriate. The record shows that the Agency coordinated with Complainant and that Complainant initialed the work sheets, acknowledging that the Agency’s corrections had been made. Our review of the file does not show an error regarding the clock rings. For these reasons, we find that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency breached the Agreement. 4 We note that Complainant’s appeal referenced a different complaint number: 4C-190-0168-19. The Agency’s decision references complaint 4C-190-0166-19. 2021000546 4 To the extent Complainant is challenging any matters that occurred after the execution of the settlement agreement, she must contact an Agency EEO counselor to initiate a new complaint. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s no breach determination. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that tend to establish that: 1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or 2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. Requests for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. 2021000546 5 Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c). COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610) You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or “department” means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint. RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations March 5, 2021 Date